|
Milestone for Shapely 1.0.13
|
View:
New views
9 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
Milestone for Shapely 1.0.13
by Sean Gillies-2
::
Rate this Message:
Hi all,
I'd like to make a Shapely 1.0.13 release in a couple weeks from the 1.0 branch http://svn.gispython.org/svn/gispy/Shapely/branches/1.0 (SVN) http://trac.gispython.org/lab/browser/Shapely/branches/1.0 (browse) If you're sitting on bug reports or patches, this would be a good time to get them into the tracker and tag using the 1.0.13 milestone. -- Sean Gillies Programmer Institute for the Study of the Ancient World New York University _______________________________________________ Community mailing list Community@... http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community |
|
|
Re: Milestone for Shapely 1.0.13
by Aron Bierbaum
::
Rate this Message:
Should we merge any of the changes that were made for GEOS 1.5
multi-threaded support to this branch? I don't know if this is strictly a maintenance release or not. -Aron On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Sean Gillies<sean.gillies@...> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'd like to make a Shapely 1.0.13 release in a couple weeks from the > 1.0 branch > > http://svn.gispython.org/svn/gispy/Shapely/branches/1.0 (SVN) > http://trac.gispython.org/lab/browser/Shapely/branches/1.0 (browse) > > If you're sitting on bug reports or patches, this would be a good time > to get them into the tracker and tag using the 1.0.13 milestone. > > -- > Sean Gillies > Programmer > Institute for the Study of the Ancient World > New York University > > _______________________________________________ > Community mailing list > Community@... > http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community > Community mailing list Community@... http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community |
|
|
Re: Milestone for Shapely 1.0.13
by Sean Gillies-2
::
Rate this Message:
I'd like to call that version 1.1. The problem there is that I've been
using "1.1" for work involving much larger changes. Maybe we'd hop that and branch 1.2 from 1.0, develop for the re-entrant GEOS C API in 1.2, and plan to deprecate 1.0 over the course of some months? The code I'm calling 1.1 now should then become "2.0". On Aug 31, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Aron Bierbaum wrote: > Should we merge any of the changes that were made for GEOS 1.5 > multi-threaded support to this branch? I don't know if this is > strictly a maintenance release or not. > > -Aron > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Sean > Gillies<sean.gillies@...> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I'd like to make a Shapely 1.0.13 release in a couple weeks from the >> 1.0 branch >> >> http://svn.gispython.org/svn/gispy/Shapely/branches/1.0 (SVN) >> http://trac.gispython.org/lab/browser/Shapely/branches/1.0 (browse) >> >> If you're sitting on bug reports or patches, this would be a good >> time >> to get them into the tracker and tag using the 1.0.13 milestone. >> >> -- >> Sean Gillies >> Programmer >> Institute for the Study of the Ancient World >> New York University >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community mailing list >> Community@... >> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >> > _______________________________________________ > Community mailing list > Community@... > http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community -- Sean _______________________________________________ Community mailing list Community@... http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community |
|
|
Re: Milestone for Shapely 1.0.13
by Aron Bierbaum
::
Rate this Message:
I would agree that the changes that you have been working on should
probably be called 2.0. What do you think about branching trunk from right before your big changes and calling this 1.2? I believe that many of the changes for the re-entrant GEOS C API are in there. We might still need to merge any bug fixes from 1.0 that still exist. This would have the same effect as making a 1.2 branch right before your big changes. There could be a lot of painful merging though. Anyway I have been doing something similar to this based on r1194 as a starting point. -Aron On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Sean Gillies<sean.gillies@...> wrote: > I'd like to call that version 1.1. The problem there is that I've been > using "1.1" for work involving much larger changes. Maybe we'd hop > that and branch 1.2 from 1.0, develop for the re-entrant GEOS C API in > 1.2, and plan to deprecate 1.0 over the course of some months? The > code I'm calling 1.1 now should then become "2.0". > > On Aug 31, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Aron Bierbaum wrote: > >> Should we merge any of the changes that were made for GEOS 1.5 >> multi-threaded support to this branch? I don't know if this is >> strictly a maintenance release or not. >> >> -Aron >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Sean >> Gillies<sean.gillies@...> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'd like to make a Shapely 1.0.13 release in a couple weeks from the >>> 1.0 branch >>> >>> http://svn.gispython.org/svn/gispy/Shapely/branches/1.0 (SVN) >>> http://trac.gispython.org/lab/browser/Shapely/branches/1.0 (browse) >>> >>> If you're sitting on bug reports or patches, this would be a good >>> time >>> to get them into the tracker and tag using the 1.0.13 milestone. >>> >>> -- >>> Sean Gillies >>> Programmer >>> Institute for the Study of the Ancient World >>> New York University >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Community mailing list >>> Community@... >>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community mailing list >> Community@... >> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community > > -- > Sean > > _______________________________________________ > Community mailing list > Community@... > http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community > Community mailing list Community@... http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community |
|
|
Re: Milestone for Shapely 1.0.13
by Sean Gillies-2
::
Rate this Message:
Aron,
There are a bunch of changesets between 1173 (where we branched 1.0) and 1194 that aren't relevant to anything but the 2.0 code. I suspect our best bet is to branch 1.2 from the current head of 1.0 and try to apply 1194, or at least some of it, to the new branch. On Sep 1, 2009, at 6:47 PM, Aron Bierbaum wrote: > I would agree that the changes that you have been working on should > probably be called 2.0. What do you think about branching trunk from > right before your big changes and calling this 1.2? I believe that > many of the changes for the re-entrant GEOS C API are in there. We > might still need to merge any bug fixes from 1.0 that still exist. > This would have the same effect as making a 1.2 branch right before > your big changes. There could be a lot of painful merging though. > Anyway I have been doing something similar to this based on r1194 as a > starting point. > > -Aron > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Sean Gillies<sean.gillies@...> > wrote: >> I'd like to call that version 1.1. The problem there is that I've >> been >> using "1.1" for work involving much larger changes. Maybe we'd hop >> that and branch 1.2 from 1.0, develop for the re-entrant GEOS C API >> in >> 1.2, and plan to deprecate 1.0 over the course of some months? The >> code I'm calling 1.1 now should then become "2.0". >> >> On Aug 31, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Aron Bierbaum wrote: >> >>> Should we merge any of the changes that were made for GEOS 1.5 >>> multi-threaded support to this branch? I don't know if this is >>> strictly a maintenance release or not. >>> >>> -Aron >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Sean >>> Gillies<sean.gillies@...> wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I'd like to make a Shapely 1.0.13 release in a couple weeks from >>>> the >>>> 1.0 branch >>>> >>>> http://svn.gispython.org/svn/gispy/Shapely/branches/1.0 (SVN) >>>> http://trac.gispython.org/lab/browser/Shapely/branches/1.0 >>>> (browse) >>>> >>>> If you're sitting on bug reports or patches, this would be a good >>>> time >>>> to get them into the tracker and tag using the 1.0.13 milestone. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sean Gillies >>>> Programmer >>>> Institute for the Study of the Ancient World >>>> New York University >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Community mailing list >>>> Community@... >>>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Community mailing list >>> Community@... >>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >> >> -- >> Sean >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community mailing list >> Community@... >> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >> > _______________________________________________ > Community mailing list > Community@... > http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community -- Sean _______________________________________________ Community mailing list Community@... http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community |
|
|
Re: Milestone for Shapely 1.0.13
by Aron Bierbaum
::
Rate this Message:
I would like to make a 1.2 branch today and start merging the changes
for the re-entrant GEOS C API. Does anyone have any objections? -Aron On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Sean Gillies <sean.gillies@...> wrote: > Aron, > > There are a bunch of changesets between 1173 (where we branched 1.0) > and 1194 that aren't relevant to anything but the 2.0 code. I suspect > our best bet is to branch 1.2 from the current head of 1.0 and try to > apply 1194, or at least some of it, to the new branch. > > On Sep 1, 2009, at 6:47 PM, Aron Bierbaum wrote: > >> I would agree that the changes that you have been working on should >> probably be called 2.0. What do you think about branching trunk from >> right before your big changes and calling this 1.2? I believe that >> many of the changes for the re-entrant GEOS C API are in there. We >> might still need to merge any bug fixes from 1.0 that still exist. >> This would have the same effect as making a 1.2 branch right before >> your big changes. There could be a lot of painful merging though. >> Anyway I have been doing something similar to this based on r1194 as a >> starting point. >> >> -Aron >> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Sean Gillies<sean.gillies@...> >> wrote: >>> I'd like to call that version 1.1. The problem there is that I've >>> been >>> using "1.1" for work involving much larger changes. Maybe we'd hop >>> that and branch 1.2 from 1.0, develop for the re-entrant GEOS C API >>> in >>> 1.2, and plan to deprecate 1.0 over the course of some months? The >>> code I'm calling 1.1 now should then become "2.0". >>> >>> On Aug 31, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Aron Bierbaum wrote: >>> >>>> Should we merge any of the changes that were made for GEOS 1.5 >>>> multi-threaded support to this branch? I don't know if this is >>>> strictly a maintenance release or not. >>>> >>>> -Aron >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Sean >>>> Gillies<sean.gillies@...> wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to make a Shapely 1.0.13 release in a couple weeks from >>>>> the >>>>> 1.0 branch >>>>> >>>>> http://svn.gispython.org/svn/gispy/Shapely/branches/1.0 (SVN) >>>>> http://trac.gispython.org/lab/browser/Shapely/branches/1.0 >>>>> (browse) >>>>> >>>>> If you're sitting on bug reports or patches, this would be a good >>>>> time >>>>> to get them into the tracker and tag using the 1.0.13 milestone. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sean Gillies >>>>> Programmer >>>>> Institute for the Study of the Ancient World >>>>> New York University >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Community mailing list >>>>> Community@... >>>>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Community mailing list >>>> Community@... >>>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>> >>> -- >>> Sean >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Community mailing list >>> Community@... >>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community mailing list >> Community@... >> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community > > -- > Sean > > _______________________________________________ > Community mailing list > Community@... > http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community > Community mailing list Community@... http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community |
|
|
Re: Milestone for Shapely 1.0.13
by Sean Gillies-2
::
Rate this Message:
+1
On Sep 15, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Aron Bierbaum wrote: > I would like to make a 1.2 branch today and start merging the changes > for the re-entrant GEOS C API. Does anyone have any objections? > > > -Aron > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Sean Gillies > <sean.gillies@...> wrote: >> Aron, >> >> There are a bunch of changesets between 1173 (where we branched 1.0) >> and 1194 that aren't relevant to anything but the 2.0 code. I suspect >> our best bet is to branch 1.2 from the current head of 1.0 and try to >> apply 1194, or at least some of it, to the new branch. >> >> On Sep 1, 2009, at 6:47 PM, Aron Bierbaum wrote: >> >>> I would agree that the changes that you have been working on should >>> probably be called 2.0. What do you think about branching trunk from >>> right before your big changes and calling this 1.2? I believe that >>> many of the changes for the re-entrant GEOS C API are in there. We >>> might still need to merge any bug fixes from 1.0 that still exist. >>> This would have the same effect as making a 1.2 branch right before >>> your big changes. There could be a lot of painful merging though. >>> Anyway I have been doing something similar to this based on r1194 >>> as a >>> starting point. >>> >>> -Aron >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Sean Gillies<sean.gillies@...> >>> wrote: >>>> I'd like to call that version 1.1. The problem there is that I've >>>> been >>>> using "1.1" for work involving much larger changes. Maybe we'd hop >>>> that and branch 1.2 from 1.0, develop for the re-entrant GEOS C API >>>> in >>>> 1.2, and plan to deprecate 1.0 over the course of some months? The >>>> code I'm calling 1.1 now should then become "2.0". >>>> >>>> On Aug 31, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Aron Bierbaum wrote: >>>> >>>>> Should we merge any of the changes that were made for GEOS 1.5 >>>>> multi-threaded support to this branch? I don't know if this is >>>>> strictly a maintenance release or not. >>>>> >>>>> -Aron >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Sean >>>>> Gillies<sean.gillies@...> wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to make a Shapely 1.0.13 release in a couple weeks from >>>>>> the >>>>>> 1.0 branch >>>>>> >>>>>> http://svn.gispython.org/svn/gispy/Shapely/branches/1.0 (SVN) >>>>>> http://trac.gispython.org/lab/browser/Shapely/branches/1.0 >>>>>> (browse) >>>>>> >>>>>> If you're sitting on bug reports or patches, this would be a good >>>>>> time >>>>>> to get them into the tracker and tag using the 1.0.13 milestone. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Sean Gillies >>>>>> Programmer >>>>>> Institute for the Study of the Ancient World >>>>>> New York University >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Community mailing list >>>>>> Community@... >>>>>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Community mailing list >>>>> Community@... >>>>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sean >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Community mailing list >>>> Community@... >>>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Community mailing list >>> Community@... >>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >> >> -- >> Sean >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community mailing list >> Community@... >> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >> > _______________________________________________ > Community mailing list > Community@... > http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community -- Sean _______________________________________________ Community mailing list Community@... http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community |
|
|
Re: Milestone for Shapely 1.0.13
by Aron Bierbaum
::
Rate this Message:
I have started looking through the changes between 1173 and 1194.
There seem to be a lot of commits that improve the test suite. Should any of these be merged to the new 1.2 branch? Also there is the addition of prepared geometries. If we are saying that this branch is moving to GEOS 3.1, we may want to consider including these changes. -Aron On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Sean Gillies <sean.gillies@...> wrote: > +1 > > On Sep 15, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Aron Bierbaum wrote: > >> I would like to make a 1.2 branch today and start merging the changes >> for the re-entrant GEOS C API. Does anyone have any objections? >> >> >> -Aron >> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Sean Gillies >> <sean.gillies@...> wrote: >>> Aron, >>> >>> There are a bunch of changesets between 1173 (where we branched 1.0) >>> and 1194 that aren't relevant to anything but the 2.0 code. I suspect >>> our best bet is to branch 1.2 from the current head of 1.0 and try to >>> apply 1194, or at least some of it, to the new branch. >>> >>> On Sep 1, 2009, at 6:47 PM, Aron Bierbaum wrote: >>> >>>> I would agree that the changes that you have been working on should >>>> probably be called 2.0. What do you think about branching trunk from >>>> right before your big changes and calling this 1.2? I believe that >>>> many of the changes for the re-entrant GEOS C API are in there. We >>>> might still need to merge any bug fixes from 1.0 that still exist. >>>> This would have the same effect as making a 1.2 branch right before >>>> your big changes. There could be a lot of painful merging though. >>>> Anyway I have been doing something similar to this based on r1194 >>>> as a >>>> starting point. >>>> >>>> -Aron >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Sean Gillies<sean.gillies@...> >>>> wrote: >>>>> I'd like to call that version 1.1. The problem there is that I've >>>>> been >>>>> using "1.1" for work involving much larger changes. Maybe we'd hop >>>>> that and branch 1.2 from 1.0, develop for the re-entrant GEOS C API >>>>> in >>>>> 1.2, and plan to deprecate 1.0 over the course of some months? The >>>>> code I'm calling 1.1 now should then become "2.0". >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 31, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Aron Bierbaum wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Should we merge any of the changes that were made for GEOS 1.5 >>>>>> multi-threaded support to this branch? I don't know if this is >>>>>> strictly a maintenance release or not. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Aron >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Sean >>>>>> Gillies<sean.gillies@...> wrote: >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd like to make a Shapely 1.0.13 release in a couple weeks from >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> 1.0 branch >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://svn.gispython.org/svn/gispy/Shapely/branches/1.0 (SVN) >>>>>>> http://trac.gispython.org/lab/browser/Shapely/branches/1.0 >>>>>>> (browse) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you're sitting on bug reports or patches, this would be a good >>>>>>> time >>>>>>> to get them into the tracker and tag using the 1.0.13 milestone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Sean Gillies >>>>>>> Programmer >>>>>>> Institute for the Study of the Ancient World >>>>>>> New York University >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Community mailing list >>>>>>> Community@... >>>>>>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Community mailing list >>>>>> Community@... >>>>>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sean >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Community mailing list >>>>> Community@... >>>>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Community mailing list >>>> Community@... >>>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>> >>> -- >>> Sean >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Community mailing list >>> Community@... >>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community mailing list >> Community@... >> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community > > -- > Sean > > _______________________________________________ > Community mailing list > Community@... > http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community > Community mailing list Community@... http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community |
|
|
Shapely 1.2 (was Re: Milestone for Shapely 1.0.13)
by Sean Gillies-2
::
Rate this Message:
Aron,
I've already advertised that we're going to add prepared geometry operations ;) Let's port from http://trac.gispython.org/lab/browser/shapely.geos/trunk/shapely/geos/prepared.py (which is for use with Shapely 2). If the user has a GEOS version < 3.1, then import of the prepared module should fail and apologize. I'm in favor of any small changes that improve the test suite. Let's not get bogged down in a rewrite of them like I did for 2.0. On Sep 16, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Aron Bierbaum wrote: > I have started looking through the changes between 1173 and 1194. > There seem to be a lot of commits that improve the test suite. Should > any of these be merged to the new 1.2 branch? Also there is the > addition of prepared geometries. If we are saying that this branch is > moving to GEOS 3.1, we may want to consider including these changes. > > -Aron > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Sean Gillies > <sean.gillies@...> wrote: >> +1 >> >> On Sep 15, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Aron Bierbaum wrote: >> >>> I would like to make a 1.2 branch today and start merging the >>> changes >>> for the re-entrant GEOS C API. Does anyone have any objections? >>> >>> >>> -Aron >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Sean Gillies >>> <sean.gillies@...> wrote: >>>> Aron, >>>> >>>> There are a bunch of changesets between 1173 (where we branched >>>> 1.0) >>>> and 1194 that aren't relevant to anything but the 2.0 code. I >>>> suspect >>>> our best bet is to branch 1.2 from the current head of 1.0 and >>>> try to >>>> apply 1194, or at least some of it, to the new branch. >>>> >>>> On Sep 1, 2009, at 6:47 PM, Aron Bierbaum wrote: >>>> >>>>> I would agree that the changes that you have been working on >>>>> should >>>>> probably be called 2.0. What do you think about branching trunk >>>>> from >>>>> right before your big changes and calling this 1.2? I believe that >>>>> many of the changes for the re-entrant GEOS C API are in there. We >>>>> might still need to merge any bug fixes from 1.0 that still exist. >>>>> This would have the same effect as making a 1.2 branch right >>>>> before >>>>> your big changes. There could be a lot of painful merging though. >>>>> Anyway I have been doing something similar to this based on r1194 >>>>> as a >>>>> starting point. >>>>> >>>>> -Aron >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Sean Gillies<sean.gillies@... >>>>> > >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> I'd like to call that version 1.1. The problem there is that I've >>>>>> been >>>>>> using "1.1" for work involving much larger changes. Maybe we'd >>>>>> hop >>>>>> that and branch 1.2 from 1.0, develop for the re-entrant GEOS C >>>>>> API >>>>>> in >>>>>> 1.2, and plan to deprecate 1.0 over the course of some months? >>>>>> The >>>>>> code I'm calling 1.1 now should then become "2.0". >>>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 31, 2009, at 5:12 PM, Aron Bierbaum wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Should we merge any of the changes that were made for GEOS 1.5 >>>>>>> multi-threaded support to this branch? I don't know if this is >>>>>>> strictly a maintenance release or not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -Aron >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:01 AM, Sean >>>>>>> Gillies<sean.gillies@...> wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd like to make a Shapely 1.0.13 release in a couple weeks >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> 1.0 branch >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://svn.gispython.org/svn/gispy/Shapely/branches/1.0 (SVN) >>>>>>>> http://trac.gispython.org/lab/browser/Shapely/branches/1.0 >>>>>>>> (browse) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you're sitting on bug reports or patches, this would be a >>>>>>>> good >>>>>>>> time >>>>>>>> to get them into the tracker and tag using the 1.0.13 >>>>>>>> milestone. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Sean Gillies >>>>>>>> Programmer >>>>>>>> Institute for the Study of the Ancient World >>>>>>>> New York University >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Community mailing list >>>>>>>> Community@... >>>>>>>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Community mailing list >>>>>>> Community@... >>>>>>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Sean >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Community mailing list >>>>>> Community@... >>>>>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Community mailing list >>>>> Community@... >>>>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sean >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Community mailing list >>>> Community@... >>>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Community mailing list >>> Community@... >>> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >> >> -- >> Sean >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community mailing list >> Community@... >> http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community >> > _______________________________________________ > Community mailing list > Community@... > http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community -- Sean Gillies Programmer Institute for the Study of the Ancient World New York University _______________________________________________ Community mailing list Community@... http://lists.gispython.org/mailman/listinfo/community |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
